Insights on Using Developmental Evaluation for Innovating: A Case Study on the Cocreation of an Innovative Program

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 358-374

  Lam, Chi Yan ^a   Shulha, Lyn M ^a  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

design thinking; developmental evaluation; program development; research on evaluation; social innovation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938589041     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: 15570878     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1098214014542100     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. M.C.Alkin (2003). Evaluation theory and practice: Insights and new directions. New Directions for Evaluation, 97, 81–89.
2. P.BlackD.Wiliam (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7–71.
3. T.Brown (2008, June). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86, 84–92.
4. T.BrownJ.Wyatt (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8, 30–35.
5. H.T.Chen (2005). Practical program evaluation: Assessing and improving planning, implementation, and effectiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6. C.M.ChristensenClayton M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
7. C.A.Christie (2012). Advancing empirical scholarship to further develop evaluation theory and practice. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 26, 1–18.
8. A.DaviesJ.Caulier-GriceW.Norman (2012). Introduction to innovation: A literature review of the methods and policies for innovation, a deliverable of the project: ‘The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe’ (TEPSIE), European Commission—7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research.
9. E.DozoisM.LangloisN.Blanchet-Cohen (2010). DE 201: A practitioner’s guide to developmental evaluation. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mcconnellfoundation.ca/assets/Media%20Library/Publications/DE%20201%20EN.pdf
10. P.F.Drucker (1994, November). The age of social transformation. Atlantic Monthly, 53–80.
11. G.H.Eoyang (2006). Human systems dynamics: A complexity approach to a complex evaluation. In B.WilliamsI.Imam (Eds.), Systems approaches to evaluation (pp. 75–88). Point Reyes, CA: Edge-Press/American Evaluation Association.
12. D.Fetterman (2013). Surviving the fiscal cliff. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/surviving_the_fiscal_cliff
13. S.C.FunnelP.Rogers (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14. J.A.A.Gamble (2008). A developmental evaluation primer. Retrieved fromhttp://www.mcconnellfoundation.ca/assets/Media%20Library/Publications/A%20Developmental%20Evaluation%20Primer%20-%20EN.pdf
15. D.R.GarrisonH.Kanuka (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95–105.
16. C.Geertz (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretative theory of culture. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York, NY: Basic Books.
17. S.GloubermanB.Zimmerman (2002). Complicated and complex systems: What would successful reform of Medicare look like? Commission on the future of health care in Canada(Discussion paper 8). Retrieved fromhttp://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.plexusinstitute.org/resource/collection/6528ED29-9907-4BC7-8D00-8DC907679FED/ComplicatedAndComplexSystemsZimmermanReport_Medicare_reform.pdf
18. Government of Canada. (2010). “Social innovation”: What is it? Who does it?Retrieved fromhttp://www.horizons.gc.ca/doclib/2010-0032-eng.pdf
19. G.T.HenryM.M.Mark (2003). Toward an agenda for research on evaluation. In C.A.Christie (Ed.), The practice-theory relationship in evaluation (Vol. 97, pp. 69–80). New Directions for Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
20. R.HoppeH.van de GraafA.van Dijk. (1987). Implementation research and policy design: Problem tractability, policy theory, and feasibility testing. International Review of Administrative Science, 53, 561–604.
21. E.R.House (1977). The logic of evaluative argument (CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation, 7). Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation University of California.
22. Innovation Network. (2012). State of evaluation 2012: Evaluation practice and capacity in the nonprofit sector. Retrieved fromhttp://stateofevaluation.org
23. M.LangloisN.Blanchet-CohenT.Beer (2013). The art of the nudge: Five practices for developmental evaluators. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 27, 39–59.
24. B.Parsons (1998). Using a systems change approach to building communities. In The policymakers’ program: The first five years: Implementation tools (Vol. 2). St. Louis, MO: The Danforth Foundation.
25. M.Q.Patton (1994). Developmental evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15, 311–320.
26. M.Q.Patton (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. M.Q.Patton (2005). Developmental evaluation. In S.Mathison (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 184–186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. M.Q.Patton (2006). Evaluation for the way we work. The Nonprofit Quarterly, 13, 28–33.
29. M.Q.Patton (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. M.Q.Patton (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
31. J.A.PhillsK.DeiglmeierD.T.Miller (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6, 34–43.
32. C.PothK.HoweryD.Pinto (2011). Addressing the challenges encountered during a developmental evaluation: Implications for evaluation practice. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 26, 39–48.
33. H.PreskillT.Beer. (2012). Evaluating social innovation. Retrieved fromhttp://www.fsg.org/tabid/191/ArticleId/708/Default.aspx?srpush=true
34. H.PreskillT.T.Catsambas (2006). Reframing evaluation through appreciative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35. W.R.ShadishT.D.CookL.C.Leviton (1991). Foundations of program evaluation: Theories of practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
36. N.L.Smith (1993). Improving evaluation theory through the empirical study of evaluation practice. Evaluation Practice, 14, 237–242.
37. N.L.Smith (2010). Introduction to the forum: Advances in evaluating evaluation theory. American Journal of Evaluation, 31, 382.
38. R.Stake (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N.K.DenzinY.S.Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39. R.Stake (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work. New York, NY: Guildford Press.
40. D.L.Stufflebeam (1983). Evaluation models. Evaluation in Education and Human Services, 6, 117–141.
41. F.WestleyB.ZimmermanM.Q.Patton (2006). Getting to maybe: How the world is changed. Toronto, Canada: Random House.
42. B.WilliamsR.Hummelbrunner (2010). Systems concepts in action: A practitioner’s toolkit. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
43. B.WilliamsI.Imam (Ed.). (2007). Systems concepts in evaluation: An expert anthology. Inverness, CA: EdgePress.
44. D.B.YarbroughL.M.ShulhaR.K.HopsonF.A.Caruthers (2011). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45. R.K.Yin (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.